I have just been reading an article on deposit schemes legislation (which we helped produce) and despite almost three years of reading sections 212 to 215 Housing Act 2004, I think I may have just found a flaw in the argument that helps landlords about late protection which I had not (and many other practitioners had not) considered.

We have always held the view that if a landlord protects a deposit and gives the prescribed information, or repays the full deposit back prior to any hearing regarding the matter albeit after 14 days, the landlord will escape penalty (see Draycott v Hannells and Harvey v Bamforth for example).

However, I was just reading again the case Seghier v Rollings Bow County Court 6 March 2009 and it dawned on me is this principle of avoiding compensation correct?

The reason ... Please login or signup to continue reading this content